|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2020, 04:54:22 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2012 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, ON Progressive)
  The theory that Romney wasn't conservative enough to win: (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: The theory that Romney wasn't conservative enough to win:  (Read 2873 times)
eric82oslo
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,528
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

« on: July 24, 2013, 02:21:24 pm »

It's ludicrous to suggest that Romney did so poorly among moderate voters, in particular moderate Hispanics and apathetic working class whites, because he wasn't conservative enough. Romney did so poorly because he was seen as a billionaire without the common touch and common sense and understanding of middle class families. It is as easy as that really.
Logged
eric82oslo
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,528
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2013, 01:44:00 pm »

Romney was good enough for me, and if I could vote I would've voted for him. But why is it that some of these people disagree on a few issues and tell the world that he isn't conservative enough? To hell with that.

The problem was that he was portrayed as a man who didn't care about the average American, a man who favored rich and hated poor people who live on government and depend on government. He gave away more than Obama/Biden in charity and has helped families in need and also ran a business, while Obama here graduated, became a community organizer for Chicago, became a Senator for 4 years, and then ran for President. He was always involved in government, and never the individual tax payer, but nobody payed attention to that and the left was very good at steering attention towards Romney's "selfishness and hate". Also comments that Romney himself made about overturning Roe vs. Wade and the "Self-Deport" comment were probably too conservative for America, and THAT all together if anything probably cost Romney the election. Yet some on the far right think he was not conservative enough, this is a huge problem right now with the republican party, and one reason why I can't even seem to align myself with them at the moment (I always was a Libertarian though).

I honestly have a problem with people who think he's not conservative enough for America. In fact a more moderate person is just what we need since this country is so polarized now. We do NOT need a far left (Obama) or far right (Bachmann) person to be President! I wouldn't mind to see Christie or Paul take the lead here, it would be great if we have common sense not ideologues!
Well Obama is liberal on social issues no doubt but moderate on economic issues. On the environment he has a heavy dislike for the coal industry so he is pretty left wing on the issue of energy/environment.

If you seen him speak, you know he has a very heavy hate for the 1% and thinks they should be taxed at higher rate (%) while the poor are victims and should live on welfare if they needed to. Taxing the rich at higher rates really isn't equal, while a flat tax is completely equal to all classes and incomes, and it's very simple to understand.

Rich-$150,000/year. 5.0% Tax = $7,500 of Tax Money
Poor-$20,000/year. 5.0% Tax = $1,000 of Tax Money

They each have 95% of their total money left. Is that not fair? (for the Dems)

One article compared Obama to Truman on ideology. He hides his true beliefs and has never exposed them, because if he exposed them, the right would freak. Remember the Jaramiah Wright scandal? You might think he's moderate on economics, but that's something I'll never believe.

What the US needs, one of the most unequal countries in the world, at least in the Western world, is not more inequality and even more shocking differences between the poor and the billionaires. That is what you're proposing with your flat tax.
Logged
eric82oslo
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,528
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2013, 02:58:09 pm »

Romney was good enough for me, and if I could vote I would've voted for him. But why is it that some of these people disagree on a few issues and tell the world that he isn't conservative enough? To hell with that.

The problem was that he was portrayed as a man who didn't care about the average American, a man who favored rich and hated poor people who live on government and depend on government. He gave away more than Obama/Biden in charity and has helped families in need and also ran a business, while Obama here graduated, became a community organizer for Chicago, became a Senator for 4 years, and then ran for President. He was always involved in government, and never the individual tax payer, but nobody payed attention to that and the left was very good at steering attention towards Romney's "selfishness and hate". Also comments that Romney himself made about overturning Roe vs. Wade and the "Self-Deport" comment were probably too conservative for America, and THAT all together if anything probably cost Romney the election. Yet some on the far right think he was not conservative enough, this is a huge problem right now with the republican party, and one reason why I can't even seem to align myself with them at the moment (I always was a Libertarian though).

I honestly have a problem with people who think he's not conservative enough for America. In fact a more moderate person is just what we need since this country is so polarized now. We do NOT need a far left (Obama) or far right (Bachmann) person to be President! I wouldn't mind to see Christie or Paul take the lead here, it would be great if we have common sense not ideologues!
Well Obama is liberal on social issues no doubt but moderate on economic issues. On the environment he has a heavy dislike for the coal industry so he is pretty left wing on the issue of energy/environment.

If you seen him speak, you know he has a very heavy hate for the 1% and thinks they should be taxed at higher rate (%) while the poor are victims and should live on welfare if they needed to. Taxing the rich at higher rates really isn't equal, while a flat tax is completely equal to all classes and incomes, and it's very simple to understand.

Rich-$150,000/year. 5.0% Tax = $7,500 of Tax Money
Poor-$20,000/year. 5.0% Tax = $1,000 of Tax Money

They each have 95% of their total money left. Is that not fair? (for the Dems)

One article compared Obama to Truman on ideology. He hides his true beliefs and has never exposed them, because if he exposed them, the right would freak. Remember the Jaramiah Wright scandal? You might think he's moderate on economics, but that's something I'll never believe.

What the US needs, one of the most unequal countries in the world, at least in the Western world, is not more inequality and even more shocking differences between the poor and the billionaires. That is what you're proposing with your flat tax.

Believe me, I would love to solve the problem of separation among income, but taxing the rich more is NOT the way to make income more equal. Suppose a hard worker who makes over $200,000 a year is forced to pay big tax rates, while that tax money is given to somebody living off the government not looking for a job. That person who earned that money is no longer going to work hard if the rates become too much and it is given to people who don't work hard. Then we have a society where no one works hard and everybody is "equal" so a person gets the same prize no matter how hard you work.

The problem isn't those in need. It's those who don't want to work and those who don't want to have personal responsibility in which we need to educate them and teach them that. Welfare should be there to get you on your feet not live off of. If anything the people who don't work are the people driving massive divide in incomes.  The United States has a huge separation of incomes because we have people who don't want to work hard (unfortunately) and those who do work hard (in which America, you can achieve anything if you work for it). Yes there are cases where one is born into poverty and in need in which it is OK to live off government for a while but we need to educate those people on work and responsibility so their not living their life on it.

The United States was built on the idea that the get what you work for, and it shall remain that way. I'm not hating the poor and all those on welfare, I'm disliking specifically the people who are not looking for a job or work. With a progressive taxation system the rich gets less of what they work for and the poor gets more of what they work for then those of higher incomes, which, again isn't "equal". With a flat tax, everybody gets the same chuck of what they work for, and that is why it is equal.

You are talking about the workers versus non-workers here. But that is not the great divide in American society, as you very well should know. The middle class is almost just as frustrated as the unemployed in the US today, because they're both unfairly exploited by the millionaires and the billionaires. The war should not be between workers and unemployed, but between the poor and the middle class on one side and the selfish billionaires on the other side. By creating an artificial divide between the middle class and the unemployed, you're actually hurting both groups and the only winners of this fight will only be those with already billions in the bank and in property. A flat tax would help the middle class next to none, in fact it would probably hurt them much more than it would help them, cause it would reduce government benefits like education and health care to next to non-existance.
Logged
eric82oslo
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,528
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2013, 03:12:09 pm »
« Edited: July 25, 2013, 03:21:46 pm by eric82oslo »

You are talking about the workers versus non-workers here. But that is not the great divide in American society, as you very well should know. The middle class is almost just as frustrated as the unemployed in the US today, because they're both unfairly exploited by the millionaires and the billionaires. The war should not be between workers and unemployed, but between the poor and the middle class on one side and the selfish billionaires on the other side. By creating an artificial divide between the middle class and the unemployed, you're actually hurting both groups and the only winners of this fight will only be those with already billions in the bank and in property. A flat tax would help the middle class next to none, in fact it would probably hurt them much more than it would help them, cause it would reduce government benefits like education and health care to next to non-existance.

OK, before we go on explain to me how billionaires exploit the middle class? and how would a flat tax reduce government benefits? I am by no means for selfish billionaires but how do they exploit the middle class?

You're suggesting that every worker should only pay 5% of their income right? I guess the average wage of a worker today is somewhere between 15% and 25%, isn't it? In that case only a very tiny fraction of taxes would remain on the federal level, and once the military budget would get its share, I guess there wouldn't be many dollars left over, if any at all. Unless one would be willing to expand the federal debt further into astronomical levels.

By the way, you're aware that the richest 400 Americans have assets equal to the 150 million poorest Americans? In other words equal to half of the US population. That should be proof enough that this share of the society should contribute much more to government operations, weather it be infrastruction, energy, research, health care or what not. What you'd like to see is an internal war between those 150 million poorest of Americans. I simply don't get it. When all the wealth is with the 1% or even the 0.1% or 0.01% of Americans, why do you further want to exploit the unemployed and the hard-struggling middle class and blue collar workers?
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines